Hill, Jr. et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER... this action is hereby remanded to the state court from which it was removed. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 5/7/2013) (krg)

ll.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR CT c
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF EXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISIO

FII~~~
•

- (

20f3

'

.·· CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

CLARENCE HILL, JR., ET AL.,

§

DY-----~--------­
Deputy

§

Plaintiffs,

§
§

vs.

§

NO. 4:13-CV-307-A

§

WELLS FARGO BANK NA F/K/A
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB F/K/A
WORLD SAVING BANK,

§
§
§
§
§

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
The court has not been persuaded that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over the above-captioned action.

Therefore, the

court is ordering the action remanded to the state court from
which it was removed.
I.

Background
Plaintiffs, Clarence Hill, Jr., and Valerie Fields Hill,
initiated this action by the filing of their original petition
and application for injunctive relief in the District Court of
Tarrant County, Texas, 236th Judicial District, naming as
defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage FSB
f/k/a World Savings Bank.

By notice of removal filed April 12,

2013, defendant removed the action to this court, alleging that

this court had subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity
of citizenship, as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and that the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, as contemplated by§ 1332(a) . 1
In the notice of removal, defendant alleged that because
plaintiffs sought to enjoin it from foreclosing on, or evicting
plaintiffs from, their property, the value of the property
constituted the amount in controversy.

Because the property was

appraised at $191,100, the amount exceeded the jurisdictional
minimum.

Defendant also claimed that plaintiffs' request for

unspecified attorney's fees, combined with the value of the
property, also exceeded the $75,000 threshold.
Because of a concern that defendant had not provided the
court with information that would enable the court to find the
existence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, the court
ordered defendant to file an amended notice of removal, together
with supporting documentation, showing that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.

1

Defendant timely

As noted in the notice of removal, plaintiffs in September 2011 filed a similar action against
defendant, which defendant also removed to this court. The court exercised jurisdiction over the
previous action based on the presence of a federal question on the face of plaintiffs' petition.
2

complied with the court's order.
II.

Basic Principles
The court starts with a statement of basic principles
announced by the Fifth Circuit:
"The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper."
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723
(5th Cir. 2002).

"Moreover, because the effect of removal is to

deprive the state court of an action properly before it, removal
raises significant federalism concerns, which mandate strict
construction of the removal statute." 2

Carpenter v. Wichita

Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir. 1995).
Any doubts about whether removal jurisdiction is proper must
therefore be resolved against the exercise of federal
jurisdiction.

Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th

2

The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:
[A]ny civil action brought in a State court ofwhich the district courts ofthe United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to
the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.
(emphasis added).
3

Cir. 2000).
To determine the amount in controversy, the court ordinarily
looks to the plaintiff's state court petition.
at 723.

Manguno, 276 F.3d

If it is not facially apparent from the petition that

the amount in controversy exceeds the required amount, the
removing party must set forth summary judgment-type evidence,
either in the notice of removal or in an affidavit, showing that
the amount in controversy is, more likely than not, greater than
$75,000.

Id.; Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335

(5th Cir. 1995).

The amount in controversy is measured from the

perspective of the plaintiff.

See Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of

Texas Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 640 n.4 (5th Cir. 2003).
III.
The True Nature of Plaintiffs' Claims
The petition by which plaintiffs initiated this action in
the state court does not specify a dollar amount of recovery
sought, nor does it define in any way the value of the right
sought to be protected or the extent of the injury sought to be
prevented.

Rather, the allegations of the petition are typical

of many state court petitions that are brought before this court

4

by notices of removal in which the plaintiff makes vague,
general, and obviously legally baseless allegations in an attempt
to frustrate the procedures a lender is pursuing, or has pursued,
to regain possession of residential property the plaintiff used
as security for the making of a loan.
As the court has been required to do in other cases of this
kind, the court has undertaken an evaluation of the true nature
of plaintiffs' claims.

Having done so, and having considered the

authorities and arguments cited by defendant in the amended
notice of removal, the court remains unpersuaded that the amount
in controversy exceeds the required jurisdictional minimum.
In the case at bar, plaintiffs alleged that they entered
into a written contract with defendant's predecessor for the
purchase of real property, and through June 2010 timely performed
their payment obligations.

However, around June 2010 plaintiffs

requested a loan modification from defendant.

No final approval

has been given for a loan modification, and the property was
posted for a foreclosure sale.

Plaintiffs apparently contend

that defendant has breached its contract with plaintiffs, and
they seek injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure proceedings.

5

In the amended notice of removal defendant reurged its
argument that because plaintiffs seek to enjoin foreclosure and
eviction, they are seeking to maintain ownership of the property
without the necessity of making payments and without any future
threat of foreclosure.

Thus, in defendant's view, the right to

the property is at stake, and the benefit to plaintiffs is at
least the value of the property. 3
The main factual allegations in the petition concern
plaintiffs' ongoing attempts to secure a modification agreement
from defendant to modify the loan payment on their property.
Plaintiffs also ask the court to enjoin defendant from
foreclosing on the property "during the pendency of this cause of
action in order to maintain the status quo herein."
of Removal, Ex. C-1, at 12.

Am. Notice

All of the foregoing are tantamount

3

Defendant relies in part on unpublished cases from the Fifth Circuit, Nationstar Mortgage LLC v.
Knox, 351 F. App'x 844 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), and Copeland v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 485 F.
App'x 8 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). The pertinent portion ofNationstar, in tum, relies on Waller v.
Profllns. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961). This court has previously explained its reasoning
for finding Waller inapposite to determining the amount in controversy in cases such as the instant
action. See Ballew v. America's Servicing Co., No. 4: 11-CV-030-A, 2011 WL 880135 (N.D. Tex. Mar.
14, 2011). The basis of defendant's reliance on Copeland is a single sentence in the "Background"
section of the opinion that "the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 due to the value of the subject
property." 485 F. App'x at *9. No further information or analysis concerning the basis of the court's
jurisdiction is given in the opinion beyond this single sentence, nor is it part of the court's holding. The
court is thus unable to determine if the jurisdictional facts in Copeland are analogous to, or
distinguishable from, those before the court in the instant action.
6

to plaintiffs' admission that any claim they may have had to the
property would be subject to the note and deed of trust-admissions that are inconsistent with any claim to outright
ownership of the property.

Although defendant also relies on

plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees to establish the amount
in controversy, no information is provided in the state court
petition as to what that amount might be.

Accordingly, any

reliance on the potential amount of any attorney's fees is purely
speculative.
To summarize, the court is convinced that there is no
legitimate dispute in this action over ownership to the property,
only plaintiffs' efforts to extend the time they can stay on the
property while attempting to make payment arrangements with
defendant.

No information has been provided to the court that

would enable the court to place a value on the interest
plaintiffs seek to protect by this action.

Thus, defendant has

not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs.

Consequently, the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the action, and it should be remanded to the
state court from which it was removed.

7

IV.

Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that this action be, and is hereby,
remanded to the state court from which it was removed.
SIGNED May 7, 2013.

8